Meta-point: backward compatibility
cgibbard at gmail.com
Thu Apr 24 16:55:53 EDT 2008
2008/4/24 Chris Smith <cdsmith at twu.net>:
> 3. Don't get me wrong; I'm definitely not arguing for this ($)
> associativity change, for example, and my objection is the backward
> compatibility. But ultimately, it's more like a combination of
> incompatibility and the lack of a really compelling story on why it
> should be one way or the other. I have a hard time calling this a "fix";
> it's more like a change of personal taste. If I saw this as really
> broken, then I'd say we need to talk about how to fix it.
How about the argument that the right associative ($), in conjuction
with (.) is less expressive than that left associative one in
conjunction with (.)? That is, more parentheses can be avoided.
Everything you can do with chained right associative ($), you can do
with (.) and a single ($), whereas there are things you can express
with chained left-associative ($) which you need parentheses to
express without it.
More information about the Haskell-prime